Posted:21st Nov 2002First and formost, I am not starting this topic to start a fight, or for anyone to blow up on anyone.

I took one of Dom's suggestions (not really a spoken suggestion) and since I have access to BBC for the first time, I have been watching alot of it during my off time. It has brought a few things to my mind that CNN had yet to. One thing is it definatly shows more of a story than CNN, though quality is something to be desired, anyhow thats not the point.

I have also started looking at the pending war on Iraq with some different thoughts.

(I think I will scare the piss out of Dom hehe)

I still dont think that President Bush really cares about the oil. I still think this is a none factor to him. Honestly I think that he wants to finish what his father started.

Yes it is undeniable that Saddam is an evil man and needs to be removed from power.

Is a US lead coalition (SP) really needed? I dont think so. I think that it is a matter for the UN to decide.

The things that Bush says makes me honestly think that he is really really serching for a way to attack Iraq.

Something was said earlyer by someone about just assasinating Saddam. The only problem with assasinating Saddam is that it is against the Geniva Convention. However I agree that assasinating Saddam is a damn good idea.

Sadam has made his own people suffer pretty bad. He lives a life of luxury while the men who are in his military starve. His civialian populace are forced to give up the majority of what little crops they grow, to him. While he sits there and blames the US.

If 12 years ago he hadnt attacked Kuait would we even know about his ability to make chemical weapons? Would the world populace know of his cruelty?

Posted:24th Nov 2002Ahh the infamous lightbulb. Well Dom is off galabanting around the globe so you missed him. Kinda sucks too but thats life.

To my knowlege Saddam never tried to kill Bush Sr. Then again I dont know everything as it has been pointed out numerus times.

Bush isnt out to get all Arabs, I know that is very contrary to populer belief, but have some faith. Just like when the US was involved in conflicts with two Aisian contries back to back we were not out to kill all Aisians.

I am suprised that nothing happend sooner, just about everytime coalition planes patrole the nofly zones they get shot at. They kill whoever shoots at them but I am suprised that there were no large scale attacks being done.

Posted:25th Nov 2002Before I say anything else, let it be understood that I think Saddam Hussein is a terrible leader. He's a thug and a bully and he's only out for his own gain, I don't think he gives a damn about the Iraqi populace. I can understand those who think having him assasinated would be a really good idea. Unfortunately, international politics are never that simple. Ray is right when he says that goes against the Geneva conventions: i think that that is an extremely good thing. If anyone could assisinate anyone on the grounds that they deem them to be bad leaders, we wouldn't have any leaders left: someone ALWAYS disagrees.

I am against a new war in the Gulf. Not because i don't think that Iraq without Saddam would be a better place without Saddam, but because of the far-reaching consequences such a war would have: many Arab nations, certainly many fundamentalist Islamists, would see it as an attack on the entire Arab/Islamic world. This would polarise relationships between the West and Islamic countries even further, it would breed more anti-Western hate: the world would end up with a far bigger problem on its hands than just one unpleasant dictator. Not to mention the huge toll on civilian lives such a war would inevitably take. I don't believe that Saddam Hussein is truly a threat to worldwide peace and safety: i know he has used biological weapons against his own people in the past. Of course this is utterly reprehensible. Saddam however, has never done anything to indicate that he's suicidal: he knows perfectly well that if he were ever to use weapons of mass destruction against other countries, his own country would be completely wiped out.

If war were to errupt in the Middle East, president Sharon of Israel would probably use it as an excuse to step up actions against the Palestinians, perhaps even use it as an excuse to drive them out of the country entirely.

One of the pro-war arguments is that Saddam Hussein is a destabilising factor in the region. This may be true to a degree, but I can't imagine any factor more destabilising than a war would be. If world powers truly wish to stabilise the region, they should focus on helping to find a non-violent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I spoke to an Iraqi refugee a few weeks ago: she told me that the Iraqi people are not particularly happy about Saddam's regime themselves. She said that if they had the means, they would rebel themselves. However, the sanctions that have been in place against the country since the 1st Gulf war have left it so impoverished that the people are utterly dependent on Saddam's regime for their own survival: if they are good citizens, they receive the bare minimum of food needed for survival - i.e. the sanctions are preventing the Iraqi people from bringing about a regime change themselves.

I'm extremely grateful that British, American and Russian forces came to our rescue in WW2. In the current situation however, i don't see how war could ever lead to peace. Yes, the world would definitely be a better place without Saddam as president of Iraq - first and foremost it would be a better place for the people of Iraq - but I think the cost of removing him would be far, far greater than the gain.

Posted:25th Nov 2002An outstanding post, I would like to say that if the sanctions were lifted would the situation improve? Look at what is going on in some African countries where aid is horded and only certain people can get the bare nessisties.

Posted:25th Nov 2002why thank you Ray! I don't know if the situation would improve if the sanctions were lifted: you're absolutely right that aid is very open to abuse by governments or rebel groups, there's no way of being certain that the lifting of the sanctions wouldn't just mean more money for Saddam, and continued poverty for his people. However, that young Iraqi woman (her father was in the Iraqi opposition, which is why they had to flee) I spoke to seemed to think lifting the sanctions would be a good thing for the people of Iraq. She thought it might leave them strong enough to get rid of Saddam by themselves - and she may be right, she lived in the place for 18 years before she came here, after all...

Posted:28th Nov 2002ok... anywho.. the george bush sr. thing is true. its known that sadam tried to kill him while he was in the middle east. i think he sent a demolition truck at his motorcade. nephtys you could very well be right. im not sure what sanctions are hindering a coup but i do know that without our thumb on sadam he would begin bombing the kurds and other oposeing groups into submission. hes a shoot first ask questions last kinda guy, we all know that. not to mention the cia has supplyed and trained arabs to rise against sadam secretly. unfortunately when we pulled out of the middle east they saw that as abandoning them and alot of them have used are own training against us. i think thats pretty shitty of the few who felt that way. it really isnt america or britains responsability to over through opressive rules. we lend a helping hand and they should be grateful for what they do get from us. i do fear retaliation as a result to a war in iraq. theres always fear of war. thats alot of heat a bad feelings directed at us. in my opinion you just cant let fear win though. no matter what. you have to just jump in or problems just grow and become more formidable.

Posted:28th Nov 2002Mike, for now that remains a secret but it is someone that I care very much for, and at her request I will not say too much more. She is rather shy.

Anyhow, I think that what I have heard on the news, (almost all from BBC, Dom was so right that BBC is way better than CNN [yes I did just say Dom was right, hehe told ya he would ruin his underware hehe] ) a US lead coalition is welcome by the people. They cant just come out and say it but it is welcome. I am damn sure that war isnt welcome, and it never is and I dont think it is supposed to be welcome.

I do not like the fact that when the fighting does start it wont be in the desert away from people, it will be in the middle of cities. With that kind of war, there will be many many innocent deaths, I wish there was another way.